5 related adults dead in Cessna 340 crash

Last time I checked, Ida may fuller wasn't a millennial. Spare us the generational canard. We re all innocent in Shawshank brother.
 
Kritchlow said:
Exactly. And I’m betting it wasn’t all that difficult..??
Click to expand...

it wasn't difficult, but, going for me, I had my CFII in the right seat under VMC and it's an airport I've flown the pattern in probably 300 times so I know exactly where the obstacles and hills are in the pattern.

Technically though, for a 5 hour IR student, it was not a difficult maneuver
 
denverpilot said:
The sheep don’t listen, either way. From an effectiveness standpoint, it doesn’t matter at all.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a convenient excuse for rude behavior.

But I agree though, that sheep don’t listen. The problem is that it’s easier to label someone than to actually articulate a point. So our definition of sheep quite naturally grows to include most anyone we disagree with.
 
Cooter said:
That sounds like a convenient excuse for rude behavior.

But I agree though, that sheep don’t listen. The problem is that it’s easier to label someone than to actually articulate a point. So our definition of sheep quite naturally grows to include most anyone we disagree with.
Click to expand...

My definition of sheep isn’t variable, perhaps yours is.

As far as “rude” goes, feel free to define that and we’ll see if your definition matches mine. I doubt it will.
 
denverpilot said:
My definition of sheep isn’t variable, perhaps yours is.
Click to expand...

What is your definition? Have you ever been wrong in assigning that label?
As far as “rude” goes, feel free to define that and we’ll see if your definition matches mine. I doubt it will.
Click to expand...

No need.
 
Cooter said:
What is your definition? Have you ever been wrong in assigning that label?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter. Between me and them, and you’re not involved, nor do I require your approval for doing so.

Or did you think I needed your permission? Sheep might.
 
mryan75 said:
discriminate against entire groups of human beings and put them to death for their religious beliefs, ethnicity or sexuality
Click to expand...
I shouldn't bite... but wasn't the whole NFL kneeling thing basically stemmed from this very thing exactly? There appears to be a perception that certain groups were, or are, being unfairly treated and targeted and discriminated against by the people who should be keeping all of us safe, etc. I support our officers, it's not an easy job and not one that I would want. I have to assume @James331 is speaking at least partially in hyperbole, but I think we're absolutely right to be weary of where things *may* be headed. My parents immigrated here (legally) in the 1970s from a communist country, and my dad has repeatedly said that the 2000's and later era are evolving more and more to look like the country he left so many decades ago

People brought up regulating part 91 to limit 0/0 takeoffs. The point is mute because the only credible data we have suggests the RVR was 1,000 to 2,000 ft.. but even if we did regulate such a thing, how would you enforce this with part 91? I doubt we'd see any real change in lives saved from accidents like this. @MauleSkinner is right as well, regulations like that remove the expectation and the ability of the PIC to exercise good ADM

Some regulations make sense and are needed, but I'm skeptical of an immediate response to anything as a call for more regulation
 
denverpilot said:
Doesn’t matter. Between me and them, and you’re not involved, nor do I require your approval for doing so.

Or did you think I needed your permission? Sheep might.
Click to expand...
You quoted me and directly responded using a word that you said you had a definition for. You involved me by quoting me.

But when asked, you refuse to clarify or provide a definition. Once again you want to lob something in from the sidelines but not have to answer for it.
You’ve basically said that this guy isn’t worth having a conversation with. I have to assume you were referring to him as a sheep. I just wanted to know if you could be wrong?

If you don’t want me to respond to you, don’t quote my posts and don’t address me. If you do quote me, the you can expect me to respond to you.
 
Tantalum said:
I doubt we'd see any real change in lives saved from accidents like this. @MauleSkinner is right as well, regulations like that remove the expectation and the ability of the PIC to exercise good ADM.

Some regulations make sense and are needed, but I'm skeptical of an immediate response to anything as a call for more regulation.
Click to expand...

Cogent analysis and thoughtful insights. Thank you.
 
^can't figure out if you're being sarcastic or not lol. I've been trying to keep my replies shorter, ha!
 
Tantalum said:
^can't figure out if you're being sarcastic or not lol. I've been trying to keep my replies shorter, ha!
Click to expand...

Completely genuine. I meant it. I agree with everything you said.
 
Tantalum said:
My parents immigrated here (legally) in the 1970s from a communist country, and my dad has repeatedly said that the 2000's and later era are evolving more and more to look like the country he left so many decades ago
Click to expand...

I have heard that from many immigrants.
 
Ryan F. said:
Oh, jeez.

Gotta love it when American citizens ask the government to protect them from themselves. "Please make it a rule so I don't do something dumb!"

Wonder what the WWII generation would think of us.

Sheep.jpg
Click to expand...

Not asking them to keep me safe. I'm asking them to make sense and follow a reasonable pattern across the board. Sorry that concept is too complex for you.
 
Cooter said:
What about a pilot community that says, if you’re not comfortable taking off in 1/4 mile vis, you’re not a competent IR pilot. Or that it shouldn’t be difficult, not even close.

Or, if you call those conditions challenging, your credentials are questioned?

The FAA allows it, so it must be safe right?
(I actually think that is a reasonable expectation for part 91 passengers to have, but that’s aside from my point.) If you can’t operate in the conditions the FAA has set as the boundaries, you aren’t doing your part to stay proficient.

Those questions are Edit: aren’t directed at you @MauleSkinner, I am just using your post to make a point.
Click to expand...

While I may be comfortable performing a 0/0 takeoff, and be quite capable of doing so safely, I am not comfortable in doing so if the mission doesn't warrant the additional risk. At 0/0 IS additional risk, as it complicates dealing with any of the multitude of things that can go wrong in the first few minutes of takeoff.

Honestly, when someone say "anyone who doesn't feel comfortable doing 0/0 takeoffs isn't proficient enough to be flying IFR" I immediately add them to the idiot list.
 
Cooter said:
Not 0/0, but same idea.
Click to expand...
I would tend to disagree with lumping those statements together...there's a difference between being comfortable with something and being proficient enough to do it, and neither one is 0/0.
 
Last edited:
The idea is that if you are a competent IR pilot, you should be comfortable doing 300 RVR takeoff. Conversely, if you aren’t comfortable with it, that must means your competence is in question.

Whether the criteria is set at 300 or 0, the idea is the same. 300 RVR is below what most airline pilots can use. I think the whole idea is wrong to suggest private pilots with and IR should be comfortable using criteria that many if not most professionals can use.

I also think it’s careless, as I pointed out earlier, to broadly state that on a forum where many non-professional pilots could get the wrong idea.

IMHO, of course.
 
In the early 80s, I worked as a corporate pilot flying a T210. I flew out of an airport that was always fogged in during the winter months & I performed many 0/0 takeoffs. I admit I was young & eager for hours.

I'd always remind the owner of the company when he requested that we depart in such conditions that if we lose an engine on climb out we are totally screwed. He was a VFR pilot & requested to leave regardless.

Now that I'm more seasoned & aware of my own mortality I wouldn't take off in 0/0 conditions again. At least not in a SEL.

I guess my point is that 0/0 takeoffs are not that difficult if you are proficient but waiting out the fog is the "old pilot method".

It's a shame that these people lost their lives. RIP
 
Cooter said:
The idea is that if you are a competent IR pilot, you should be comfortable doing 300 RVR takeoff. Conversely, if you aren’t comfortable with it, that must means your competence is in question.

Whether the criteria is set at 300 or 0, the idea is the same. 300 RVR is below what most airline pilots can use. I think the whole idea is wrong to suggest private pilots with and IR should be comfortable using criteria that many if not most professionals can use.

I also think it’s careless, as I pointed out earlier, to broadly state that on a forum where many non-professional pilots could get the wrong idea.

IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...
In the context of the original posts, I took @Kritchlow 's statements to be regarding proficiency, not comfort.
 
Ryan F. said:
Oh, jeez.

Gotta love it when American citizens ask the government to protect them from themselves. "Please make it a rule so I don't do something dumb!"

Wonder what the WWII generation would think of us.

Sheep.jpg
Click to expand...

Not asking the government to protect me from myself. I can protect myself just fine, thanks. I'm asking that the government be consistent in their need to, and their application of, regulations that they believe are protecting us. Apparently, you can't tell the difference.

And, I could care less what the WWII generation would think. They're mostly dead, and they lived in a completely different era. Unfortunately some people cling to past like a security blanket, sucking their thumbs.

Cooter said:
What about a pilot community that says, if you’re not comfortable taking off in 1/4 mile vis, you’re not a competent IR pilot. Or that it shouldn’t be difficult, not even close.

Or, if you call those conditions challenging, your credentials are questioned?

The FAA allows it, so it must be safe right?
(I actually think that is a reasonable expectation for part 91 passengers to have, but that’s aside from my point.) If you can’t operate in the conditions the FAA has set as the boundaries, you aren’t doing your part to stay proficient.

Those questions are Edit: aren’t directed at you @MauleSkinner, I am just using your post to make a point.
Click to expand...

I love it when people say such things. It makes it easier to identify the idiots among us.
 
I may be missing some of the context. He did mention that in a reply to me but I didn’t see it in the original posts.

I could substitute proficient for comfortable in my above statement and still be ok with it. Many IR pilots don’t need to deal with that. And if they set their personal criteria higher and avoid it altogether, I don’t think that makes them less of a pilot. More likely the opposite.

I do think most IR pilots could be trained to perform those without issue, I don’t remember having any particular problem with it. But could and should are much different.
 
Cooter said:
I may be missing some of the context. He did mention that in a reply to me but I didn’t see it in the original posts.

I could substitute proficient for comfortable in my above statement and still be ok with it. Many IR pilots don’t need to deal with that. And if they set their personal criteria higher and avoid it altogether, I don’t think that makes them less of a pilot. More likely the opposite.

I do think most IR pilots could be trained to perform those without issue, I don’t remember having any particular problem with it. But could and should are much different.
Click to expand...
If a pilot can't stay on centerline with 300 feet of it visible, they most likely can't stay on centerline in good weather.

If a pilot can't rotate and transition immediately to controlled instrument flight, they most likely have issues with instrument flight otherwise.

The proficiency part isn't about the weather...it's about basic aircraft control. I see far too many pilots who don't have that.

I do agree, however, that "could" and "should" are two different things. Being in the "could" group raises the bar on safety. "Should" or "doing" without appropriate contingency plans lowers the bar on safety.
 
How thick are these fog layers in this area? If there is visibility to see the center line an IR pilot should be able to climb through a fog layer with no issues. If it's the kind of layer I'm imagining he'd probably be in clear skies by the end of the runway.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If a pilot can't stay on centerline with 300 feet of it visible, they most likely can't stay on centerline in good weather.

If a pilot can't rotate and transition immediately to controlled instrument flight, they most likely have issues with instrument flight otherwise.

The proficiency part isn't about the weather...it's about basic aircraft control. I see far too many pilots who don't have that.
Click to expand...

All that may or may not true, I would say it’s partially true. But it does oversimplify it. All IMC conditions are not equal and the regulations reflect that. The challenges to operating in IMC are not all equal.

The mechanics to taking off low vis are not that difficult, I agree. Those mechanics are also mostly consistent with other regimes of IFR flight. But I think it involves some challenges that increase the difficulty for people only regulated by Part 91.

1. The transition to IMC occurs during a transition in phase of flight.
2. You are losing visual cues right when the vestibular system is impacted from being connected to the ground, to airborne and experiencing acceleration and a climb.
3. Your going directly from on the ground to IMC. There’s no warm up time for someone who may be slightly rusty, or a little off in general and not know it yet. Maybe a little stuffy in the sinuses but didn’t notice it.

All that may be fine for someone current and proficient, or has another pilot in the cockpit. But it also can be a real threat to someone who thinks it’s no big deal because the have an IR and are current by the FAAs standards. Or, because the pilot community in general says they should be able to do it no problem.
 
Rykymus said:
Not asking the government to protect me from myself. I can protect myself just fine, thanks. I'm asking that the government be consistent in their need to, and their application of, regulations that they believe are protecting us.
Click to expand...
They ARE being consistent. As I wrote in an earlier post, they regulate commercial transportation more stringently than private transportation. I am glad that they don't try to micromanage decisions any more than they already do.
 
scorpio said:
How thick are these fog layers in this area? If there is visibility to see the center line an IR pilot should be able to climb through a fog layer with no issues. If it's the kind of layer I'm imagining he'd probably be in clear skies by the end of the runway.
Click to expand...
It was significantly dense at the time and didn’t lift until mid to late morning. He wouldn’t have been in VMC by the end of the runway. I would imagine the tops were around 2500’, based on eyeballing it as it was burning off.
 
Rykymus said:
Not asking the government to protect me from myself. I can protect myself just fine, thanks. I'm asking that the government be consistent in their need to, and their application of, regulations that they believe are protecting us. Apparently, you can't tell the difference.

...
Click to expand...

So is the government (FAA) not deficient by your measure in not regulating all of aviation to the same standard? Clearly the government believes it is protecting us with the high levels of regulation and standards it applies to Commercial carriers. There is a direct and irrefutable correlation between the fatal accident rate and the amount of regulation being applied to each of E-AB, GA and Commercial carriers. Knowing this shouldn't the government be consistent?

I am not trying to be deliberately obtuse here. I am trying to understand your reasoning and how it should apply beyond the narrow example of 0/0 takeoff conditions.
 
Cooter said:
All that may or may not true, I would say it’s partially true. But it does oversimplify it. All IMC conditions are not equal and the regulations reflect that. The challenges to operating in IMC are not all equal.

The mechanics to taking off low vis are not that difficult, I agree. Those mechanics are also mostly consistent with other regimes of IFR flight. But I think it involves some challenges that increase the difficulty for people only regulated by Part 91.

1. The transition to IMC occurs during a transition in phase of flight.
2. You are losing visual cues right when the vestibular system is impacted from being connected to the ground, to airborne and experiencing acceleration and a climb.
3. Your going directly from on the ground to IMC. There’s no warm up time for someone who may be slightly rusty, or a little off in general and not know it yet. Maybe a little stuffy in the sinuses but didn’t notice it.

All that may be fine for someone current and proficient, or has another pilot in the cockpit. But it also can be a real threat to someone who thinks it’s no big deal because the have an IR and are current by the FAAs standards. Or, because the pilot community in general says they should be able to do it no problem.
Click to expand...
Which is one reason I disagree with a "one standard" for all operations, commercial or private. In the commercial world, a "minimum" becomes a de facto requirement. In other words, if you're approved and equipped for 500 RVR, it basically means that if it's 500 RVR you won't have a choice as to whether to takeoff or not.

As I mentioned earlier, commercial rules are there in large part to remove pilot judgment from the equation. The target is to remove bad judgement, but good judgment is also removed.
 
GRG55 said:
So is the government (FAA) not deficient by your measure in not regulating all of aviation to the same standard? Clearly the government believes it is protecting us with the high levels of regulation and standards it applies to Commercial carriers. There is a direct and irrefutable correlation between the fatal accident rate and the amount of regulation being applied to each of E-AB, GA and Commercial carriers. Knowing this shouldn't the government be consistent?

I am not trying to be deliberately obtuse here. I am trying to understand your reasoning and how it should apply beyond the narrow example of 0/0 takeoff conditions.
Click to expand...


You actually think the government cares about you?

That's cute
 
James331 said:
You actually think the government cares about you?

That's cute
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should re-read both my post and the post I was responding to James. There's nothing in my post to support your attribution.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...As I mentioned earlier, commercial rules are there in large part to remove pilot judgment from the equation. The target is to remove bad judgement, but good judgment is also removed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why I question the expected value or outcomes of the advocacy expressed here by some for even more FAA regulation of a sector that is already one of the most regulated in the economy.

To greater or lesser degree regulations are invariably prescriptive and, as you described, each thus removes some or all of discretionary decision making in the circumstance. At some point regulations become an effort to legislate common sense.
 
Rykymus said:
Regulations need to make sense.
Click to expand...
I think they do make sense, they make sense because they differentiate between someone who makes aviation his business versus someone for whom it is a hobby - consistent with other spheres of human activity. But this is just my opinion. But you can petition your lawmakers to rewrite the rules, no doubt they will be a hearing and opinions will vary greatly. You might win by presenting super tight arguments but the other side will produce counter-arguments, we will see where chips will fall.
 
MauleSkinner said:
As I mentioned earlier, commercial rules are there in large part to remove pilot judgment from the equation. The target is to remove bad judgement, but good judgment is also removed.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Maybe he’s saying they’ve already largely done that on the private side as well. (Regulate to the point that room for good judgement is mostly gone). But they've left some strange exceptions?

If that’s the argument, that might make sense. The camel’s nose is already under the tent.

So it’s a “what’s done is done” vs a “ they haven’t taken everything yet!”, difference in perspective.
 
To make a side point here about Private vs Commercial regulations...

If you decide Commercial regulations always make things safer, tell me again how much you utilize a moving map on an iPad in your Part 91 cockpit...

I think we can all agree, in the early days of tablet tech in the cockpit, and well before any commercial operation was allowed to even use electronic charts, let alone turn the GPS and ownship on...

The gadgets were making a significant safety impact on private flying, in a good way. Heck, even back to the laptop and touchscreen windows tablet days before that, if one could afford these “unsafe” and “uncertified” technologies.

Most commercial operations still have to leave their tablets in a crippled state to meet their ops manuals.

And of course there’s the reality that even the ultra-safe $10,000+ GPS units are still getting nearly quarterly software updates to squash deadly software bugs, or at least annually, and we’re talking models that have been out for over a decade. Still finding deadly bugs in the “certified” gear, 10-15 years after it was introduced.
 
I know next to nothing about IFR and the training, requirements, regulations.
I'm not even a full fledged pilot yet.

I will say, I'm kind of saddened by the flame war between salty and denverpilot. Both of them have been great help to my both directly to some of my questions, or comments, and also in replies to others. I have a great respect for both of them. I may be wrong but I didn't get (in general, may have missed a key comment) the feeling that salty was disparaging or saying anything about THIS pilot. But my experiences with denverpilot lead me to trust also his judgement, yet salty also has enlightened me many times.

I know that we shouldn't be judging this pilot, when we don't have the facts, but I don't even know enough to judge the general case for judgment of taking off in extremely low visibility and with the same conditions at other aerodromes.

For me as an inexperienced student, I wouldn't and couldn't think of taking off in such conditions, but I know that I don't know. As for informing the passengers, I also have mixed feelings. My gut feeling is that the pilot ought to have let them know it was a little more difficult circumstances, and let them them decide if it was worth the risk, but for all we know, he may even have done that!

I don't think a pilot ought to be "holy ground" and untouchable, he could have been anything from a very conscientious pilot that just had a situation where there was no chance of recovery to a overconfident person that felt pushed to make the flight (I'm sure there is an element too of justifying the cost of owning a plane, to family and friends, and trying to avoid the "you mean you can't depend on it as transportation?" thing) or whatever. Just no way to know.

Though less regulated, these things happen on the ground too in driving. Here in Norway we recently had a good deal of both fog and freezing rain. Cars were slipping and sliding off the roads specially in specific areas.
The police even warned that people ought to leave their cars at home unless it was necessary to drive.

This is just driving, way easier than flying, and yet I wouldn't have considered, even though I had the right to decide it, to drive somewhere just for lunch, and even more so, no way I would be driving my kids or grandkids.
The reward was not worth the risk. That is just driving. I'm a very good driver, I drive according to conditions, anticipate (am ahead of the car) and am more cautious on ice and snow than many Norwegians, knowing that it can go bad very quickly.

I have both learned a lot from this thread, a lot to think about, but also have gone from one side to the other as I see good arguments for both, but personally I like to err on the side of caution unless the situation calls for drastic. In any case it is a very sad thing. But also, how many people have died in other, non aviation, accidents since this accident?

You hear of other accidents and maybe draw conclusions without all the facts, but when it is a pilot suddenly it's sacred. It is correct in all instances to wait to hear what th cause is from the authorities, but people speculate. Specially in these kind of circumstance, as I am very interested in possible causes, and decision making on conditions,p.

It's sad, but someone decided to fly in conditions that are challenging (and may or may not been up to the challenge) and something went wrong. It could well be that it was destined even in clear weather to happen, but I think honestly most of us think "ok, something happened, but the conditions most likely made it worse" don't we?

I'm in no position to criticize or make assumptions, as a pilot, because I am not a pilot yet. Even when I become one I may or may not go further to instrument rating so I wouldn't be much more capable of judging it even then.

But I respect most of you here, and definitely denverpilot and salty. I hope you guys can "reset" and be constructive, us students get a lot from both of you!
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
And of course there’s the reality that even the ultra-safe $10,000+ GPS units are still getting nearly quarterly software updates to squash deadly software bugs, or at least annually, and we’re talking models that have been out for over a decade.
Click to expand...
Hell, at this point I’d take a quarterly or annual update over updates every other day that effectively turn my phone into a brick....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top